It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Section31
Originally posted by Wizayne
Actually you are wrong and backwards. Because all three buildings fell during the same event, all you have to do is prove one of them was a controlled demolition and that would be enough to suspect every building on that day was demolished by controlled actions.
Can you prove that George Bush and his administration were involved?
Definitively prove your case?
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by bjarneorn
The precense of thermite residue can be observed ... it can be observed in many ways. Although many of these ways are circumstancial, that still supports thermite presence. One of the ways you can see it, is by the molten steel ... you have no heat source to melt steel ... none, period. And if you continue to talk about kerasin fuel melting steel, then seriously go jump off a bridge or something ...
This is where your argument falls apart. Only Jones "observed" the thermite residue, and there was no molten steel, so your evidence is bunk. The stuff dripping out of the towers was either from the lead batteries on that floor, or from melted aluminum mixed with office contents. It's stupid to think it was molten steel.
Originally posted by septic
Sure seems to be a lot of sheetrock and fireproofing dust for the top third of the building. This is where the top portion commits hari kari:
Source
edit on 6-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
Yes, iron micro-spheres were found, but it is not definitive that it had to be caused by molten steel, and it is also speculative to assume that this would find its way into every sample of Trade Center dust. It's all just assumptions piled on speculation. It's like watching one of those ridiculous History Channel shows where they go "What if this happened? That would mean THIS is what really happened! Based on knowing that THIS happened, then we know that THIS must be the ultimate truth! OMG!"
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
So my argument still stands. Like I said, publish your findings to be reviewed by scientists if you are right and the teams of scientists are wrong. To call their findings "assumptions" and "speculations" then compare it to irrelevant History Channel shows is laughable. They put their findings in peer reviewed journals. The findings in those journals still stands.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
So my argument still stands. Like I said, publish your findings to be reviewed by scientists if you are right and the teams of scientists are wrong. To call their findings "assumptions" and "speculations" then compare it to irrelevant History Channel shows is laughable. They put their findings in peer reviewed journals. The findings in those journals still stands.
I've seen who peer reviewed them. They were all conspiracy theorists who already agreed with Jones' work. Of course they're not going to criticize it. If I remember, the specific journal has had some flak as well for publishing things based on being paid and not actually reviewing the work people put through.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
Neal Bush, was a part owner of the company that started WTC security AFTER Silverstein bought it from Ports Authority for just under $200 million (if memory serves). Not that this was a White Elephant -- there were perhaps $1-$2 Billion of necessary work to remove Asbestos from the building, so I'm sure the Ports Authority was relieved to dump it. Silverstein must have looked like a fool. He then doubled the insurance for "terrorist acts" in July (just mention these things in case someone didn't see other fishy things going on).
Umm, no. No member of the Bush family was in any way, shape or form, an owner of the company that started Tower security after Silverstein LEASED the WTC complex from the Port Authority.
Marvin Bush, had been a member of the Board of Directors for Securacom, a company that had a contract to install some security systems at the WTC, but had to be excused from said contract for not being able to comply with it. In addtion, Mr Bush left the board in June 2000. Before his brother was the GOP nominee and before Silverstein leased the complex.
According to the building abatement report, the total cost of work needed to remove asbestos was going to be in the 200 million dollar range.
Then there is the "insurance" issue again. The "terrorism" insurance was never doubled. Mr Silverstein tried to buy just 1.5 billion in business interruption coverage (where terrorism falls) and his bankers balked. Eventually they agreed to 3.5 billion in coverage. Of which, the actual policy was still being negotiated on 9/11/01. There was only a binder agreement at that time, which the insurance companies agreed to honor after the attack. It was later on that Silverstein went to court to have each tower declared separate acts under the insurance to try and double the pay out from the companies. At last count, he has paid over 1.2 billion in rent to the Port Authority for property that has not generated an income for him since 2001....and of which, the buildings still arent complete. The insurance money will run out before the complex is reopened for business.
Originally posted by lunarasparagus
1: Why and/or how would the pre-rigged explosives begin detonating exactly at the point of impact on both towers? How would this have been accomplished so precisely?
2. How would pre-rigged explosives planted throughout the building survive the extreme impact (jolt) of a commercial jet, subsequent explosion, and resulting fire (which raged for more than an hour)--and still work perfectly when detonated--in sequence, resulting in a "free fall" of the building? It seems like a controlled demolition on such an enormous scale and with such precise timing would leave little room for error, especially from potential prior damage to the rigging.
3. Imploding either tower would have been the largest controlled demolition in history (as far as I know). The amount of explosive needed would have been emormous, meaning a series of VERY LOUD explosions with each collapse. I know there were peripheral explosions heard and reported prior to the collapses and some claim to see explosions in the collapse footage, but it seems like detonated charges from the amount of explosives necessary to bring down such massive structures would have been salient, LOUD, and unmistakeable (see below). Why are no such explosives heard in any of the footage of Twin Towers collapsing?
4. I've never seen a controlled demolition of a large building which begins at the top and progresses downwards (as seen with the twin towers). Has this kind of demolition been used before on other structures? Is this a tried and tested technique?
5. Why would the perpetrators have rested with assured minds that all would go perfectly as planned despite myriad unknown variables inherent with such a violent inferno? Even well planned, well controlled demolitions can and do go awry with much smaller structures and without the additional 767 impact subsequent to the preparation. Who would have considered this feasible and without high risk of possible exposure due to the potential for error?
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Then why haven't these findings been published? I see you are now resorting to attacking individuals credibility as well as the journals, rather than the information contained within them. Also, do you have any proof of them being paid, as you claim? If their findings are wrong, then publish a scientific journal to be reviewed, which anyone is yet to do, period.